Because the media trade grapples with the sackings of Antoinette Lattouf from the ABC and Clementine Ford from Nova over expressing robust views on the conflict in Gaza — and the stopping of employees at 9 papers who signed an open letter calling for goal protection from reporting on the battle — one pertinent query raised is whether or not it’s authorized to sack journalists for his or her political opinions.
Lattouf, who had taken to social media to share content material from UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, put out a assertion late on Wednesday evening stating she was “very dissatisfied” by the choice, believes she was “unlawfully terminated” and that she is at present contemplating her authorized choices.
Crikey understands stories in The Australian, in addition to posts to social media by the Govt Council of Australian Jewry, had been stay inside an hour of Lattouf being given discover of her termination.
In the meantime the ABC Melbourne workplace was vandalised on Friday morning, with “inform the reality about Palestine” written in white paint, and red paint splashed throughout the entrance of the Southbank facility.
Crikey spoke to Josh Bornstein, the principal lawyer in employment legislation at Maurice Blackburn, about whether or not media corporations are legally entitled to limit the rights of their workers.
Bornstein himself took to social media to share Lattouf’s assertion, tweeting: “One of many points raised is whether or not the ABC sacked Antoinette by purpose of her political opinion in breach of s772(1) (f) of the Honest Work Act.”
“This was the availability invoked by Scott McIntyre when he was sacked by SBS a number of years in the past.”
Former SBS soccer reporter Scott McIntyre was fired by the multicultural broadcaster in 2016 over tweets about Anzac Day that noticed then-communications minister Malcolm Turnbull personally intervene. McIntyre ultimately settled out of courtroom with SBS, having been represented by Bornstein professional bono.
Part s772(1)(f) of the Honest Work Act prohibits termination of an worker’s employment primarily based on issues reminiscent of race, intercourse, gender, nationality, ethnicity or political opinions, amongst different issues.
“You can not contract out of s.772 (1),” Bornstein mentioned. “An employment contract that stipulated that you’re not allowed to get pregnant or vote for the ALP wouldn’t be enforceable. Nonetheless, in these types of instances, employers argue that they weren’t terminating due to faith or political opinion however as a result of the worker violated a coverage. For my part, they’re one and the identical.”
Employers aren’t at liberty to dodge their obligations underneath the act by the use of an employment contract, although not solely has the definition of a political opinion not been examined within the courts — owing to the related instances settling, reminiscent of these involving La Trobe College’s Roz Ward or former Wallaby Israel Folau — however employer overreach has additionally elevated in recent times.
“The phrases political opinion haven’t been given an in depth (which means). There’s not detailed jurisprudence about what they imply,” he mentioned.
“What is going on, within the digital age, the attain of employer, assertion of energy and management over their workers has radically expanded and has turn out to be repressive and anti-democratic.”
Bornstein mentioned the Honest Work Act didn’t impose a special customary on journalists, however that the media trade imposed on itself a singular place within the labour market.
“There’s no totally different customary [for journalists of what brings a media company into disrepute], however company model managers declare model disaster each time somebody tweets — the sky is falling as a result of Fred tweeted about Anzac Day or Sally tweeted a few rainbow flag,” he mentioned.
“Journalists are in a special place to most individuals within the labour market, as a result of at the least in organisations that are journals of report, there’s this rigidity, which is a rigidity in idea and by conference, moderately than by any ironclad legislation, that goes, ‘We’re a journal of report reporting the info. It’s necessary that our employees commerce off democratic rights in order that the presentation of info just isn’t besmirched or tainted by the activism of journalists’.”
“You may make a good case that for information journalists, their obligations of honest and neutral reporting imply that they need to chorus from taking part in contentious political debate. The place it will get messier is quite a lot of journalists don’t try this — quite a lot of members of media organisations aren’t engaged in that exercise [and are engaged in opinion journalism]”.
“The problem of what the reliable constraints are for workers within the media trade and for journalists, what are reliable constraints [versus] what are lawful constraints may be very unsettled. The legislation, the foundations and conventions that apply in journalism are very brittle. There may be quite a lot of contestation concerning the restrictions, notably in America, the place journalists have fought about the suitable to precise views about issues like #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, to march within the streets. It’s a really hotly contested area, and there isn’t a settled orthodoxy.”
Requested why instances of this nature tended to settle, Bornstein mentioned it was as a result of he thought employers in that place “wouldn’t have the ability to win”.
“I believe the employer realises they’re going to look ridiculous. They gained’t have the ability to win. Their claims of a model disaster will most likely be torn to shreds. And so they don’t need that every one aired in a public trial,” he mentioned.
“It’s a debate over industrial model administration and human rights. And whether or not it’s best to have the ability to contract out of the human proper to take part in democracy, by expressing opinions, by marching within the streets, by waving a flag.”
